Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics …...Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics (2006) 19:169–194 DOI 10.1007/s10806-005-5485-3 Springer 2006 aspect has ﬁrst

IRIS VERMEIR and WIM VERBEKE

SUSTAINABLE FOOD CONSUMPTION: EXPLORING THE

CONSUMER ‘‘ATTITUDE – BEHAVIORAL INTENTION’’ GAP

(Accepted in revised form September 22, 2005)

ABSTRACT. Although public interest in sustainability increases and consumerattitudes are mainly positive, behavioral patterns are not univocally consistent with

attitudes. This study investigates the presumed gap between favorable attitude to-wards sustainable behavior and behavioral intention to purchase sustainable foodproducts. The impact of involvement, perceived availability, certainty, perceived

consumer effectiveness (PCE), values, and social norms on consumers’ attitudes andintentions towards sustainable food products is analyzed. The empirical researchbuilds on a survey with a sample of 456 young consumers, using a questionnaire and

an experimental design with manipulation of key constructs through showingadvertisements for sustainable dairy. Involvement with sustainability, certainty, andPCE have a significant positive impact on attitude towards buying sustainable dairyproducts, which in turn correlates strongly with intention to buy. Low perceived

availability of sustainable products explains why intentions to buy remain low, al-though attitudes might be positive. On the reverse side, experiencing social pressurefrom peers (social norm) explains intentions to buy, despite rather negative personal

attitudes. This study shows that more sustainable and ethical food consumption canbe stimulated through raising involvement, PCE, certainty, social norms, and per-ceived availability.

KEY WORDS: attitude, behavior, consumer, food, sustainable consumption

1. INTRODUCTION

In the wake of the series of crises within the European agro-food system,

culminating in BSE, dioxin, and foot and mouth disease, the general public

in Europe became increasingly critical about food quality and safety (Jensen

and Sandoe, 2002; Grunert, 2005; Verbeke, 2005). Also, interest in sus-

tainability, sustainable production, and sustainable consumption has in-

creased at all levels of the agriculture and food chain. Achieving sustainable

development includes strategies to achieve economic (profit), social (people),

and environmental (planet) goals (World Bank, 2003). Sustainable products

are products that contribute – through their attributes and consequences –

to one or a combination of these aspects (Reheul et al., 2001). The economic

Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics (2006) 19:169–194DOI 10.1007/s10806-005-5485-3 � Springer 2006

aspect has first of all to do with a fair price for the agricultural producers

and affordable consumer prices. The ecological component involves care for

the natural environment and livestock production conditions, the living

environment in general, and the quality of life for humans. The ecological

component refers to sustainability in the strict sense of preserving the

environment and sustainable use and management of natural resources. The

social component finally concerns an integration of agriculture in the pri-

orities and needs of the society/citizens and an appreciation and support for

the agro-food sector from the society as well as from government (a sus-

tainability-supporting policy).

Sustainable consumption is based on a decision-making process that

takes the consumer’s social responsibility into account in addition to indi-

vidual needs and wants (Meulenberg, 2003). Everyday consumption prac-

tices are still heavily driven by convenience, habit, value for money, personal

health concerns, hedonism, and individual responses to social and institu-

tional norms (FSA, 2000; IGD, 2002a, 2002b; SDC, 2003), and, most

importantly, they are likely to be resistant to change. Yet, the diversity and

complexity of the motivations involved means that in reality there is a

considerable scope for change. An important driver for change, particularly

with respect to sustainability concerns, is the tendency towards reflexivity

within a post-modern society, whereby society and its individuals actively

reflect upon existing cultural norms. The reflexive consumer (Giddens, 1991)

makes his own individualized risk assessment (Dupuis, 2000), but is not

necessarily a social activist. Dupuis (2000) argues that food is a particularly

important focus for reflexive consumers, since food consumption is a

negotiation about what a person will, and will not, let into his or her body.

Furthermore, in the past 10 years, the ethical consumer emerged who per-

ceives a more direct link between what is consumed and the social issue

itself. This kind of consumerism mainly incorporates environmental issues

but also extends to animal welfare, human rights, and labor working con-

ditions in the third world (Tallontire et al., 2001). In general, the ethical

consumer feels responsible towards society and expresses these feelings by

means of his purchase behavior (De Pelsmacker et al., 2003). Note that the

reflexive consumer is not per definition an ethical consumer. The ethical

consumer reflects specifically upon ethical consequences of his or her

behavior, while the reflexive consumer is involved with more general cultural

norms.

Practice, however, shows that initiatives like sustainable organic food,

products free from child labor, legally logged wood, and fair-trade products

often have market shares of less than 1% (MacGillivray, 2000). This is at

least partly due to the attitude-behavior gap: attitudes alone are often a poor

predictor of behavioral intention or marketplace behavior (Kraus, 1995;

IRIS VERMEIR AND WIM VERBEKE170

Ajzen, 2001). Potential explanations are that price, quality, convenience,

and brand familiarity are still the most important decision criteria (Carrigan

and Attalla, 2001; Weatherell et al., 2003), while ethical factors are only

effectively taken into account by a minority of consumers. Hence, although

consumer interest in sustainable products may be growing, sustainable food

markets remain niche markets, attracting consumers with a specific profile.

In general, the ethical consumer is a middle-aged person with a higher

income, who is above average educated, with a prestigious occupation and

who is well-informed (Roberts, 1996; Carrigan and Attalla, 2001; Maignan

and Ferrel, 2001). Gender does not seem to influence ethical decision-

making (Tsalikis and Ortis-Buonafina, 1990; Sikula and Costa, 1994;

MORI, 2000). Roberts (1995), and Diamantopoulos et al. (2003) concluded

that demographics alone – that are often used as the main market seg-

mentation variables – are not very significant in defining the socially

responsible consumer because ethical concern and awareness have become

widespread. Roberts (1996) stresses the importance of variables such as

relevant attitudes, behavioral, and personality characteristics to identify the

possible ethical consumer. A recent study on purchase intentions towards

sustainable foods also showed that psychosocial variables like attitudes,

beliefs, and subjective norms,1 more than demographics, independently

predict purchase intention for sustainable products (Robinson and Smith,

2002).

Despite several studies reporting on barriers and consumer profiles, there

is a gap in thorough understanding of consumer decision-making towards

sustainable food consumption. Hence, the objective of the present study is

first, to investigate the attitude – behavioral intention gap that often occurs,

and second, which factors influence the intention of purchasing sustainable

food. We start from the premise that positive attitudes towards buying

sustainable food products are not necessarily followed by positive inten-

tions, in contrast with the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen and Fishbein,

1974). The validity of this theory of reasoned action has yet been debated in

the specific case of food products (e.g., Kokkinaki and Lunt, 1997). We

explore the role of several individual characteristics, like involvement, per-

ceptions, and values, that could explain sustainable consumption patterns in

general and the attitude – behavioral intention gap in particular. The final

aim is to formulate recommendations for stimulating sustainable food

consumption among specific consumer segments. Since it is important to

convey messages appealing to consumer attitudes and beliefs about sus-

tainable foods, rather than to specific predetermined socio-demographic

1 Subjective norms are conceptualized in terms of the pressure that people perceive from

important other people to perform or not to perform a specific behavior.

SUSTAINABLE FOOD CONSUMPTION 171

segments (Robinson and Smith, 2002), our results can assist in future atti-

tude-targeted public or private communication efforts to effectively stimu-

late more sustainable food consumption.

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The consumer behavior model introduced by Jager (2000) serves as the basis

for a conceptual framework to investigate consumer behavioral intention

towards sustainable food products. The three main determinants of

behavioral intention with relevance to sustainable consumption are values,

needs, and motivations, information and knowledge, and behavioral control

(see Figure 1). In this specific study, we investigate involvement and values

(‘‘values, needs, and motivations’’), uncertainty (‘‘information and knowl-

edge’’), and perceived availability and perceived consumer effectiveness

(‘‘behavioral control’’), on the attitude – behavioral intention gap, respec-

tively.

2.1. Decision-Making: Attitude and Consumption Behavior

A positive attitude towards sustainable products is a good starting point to

stimulate sustainable consumption. Several studies concentrated on atti-

tudes towards sustainability and sustainable consumption behavior

(Shamdasani et al., 1993; Shrum et al., 1995; Verbeke and Viaene, 1999;

Chan, 2001; Bisonette and Contento, 2001; De Pelsmacker et al., 2003;

Gordier, 2003; Tanner and Kast, 2003). In general, about 30% of the

Personal values, needs, and motivation

Involvement, Values, Social norms

Information andknowledge

(Un)certainty

Behavioral control

Availability,PCE

Decision-makingprocess Attitude Behaviorial

intention

Individual and situational determinants

Figure 1. Conceptual framework used to investigate consumer behavior towards

sustainable food products Top level: adapted consumer behavior model fromJager (2000); Second level: constructs included in the empirical study; Bold faceindicates manipulated constructs in the research design


consumers have a positive attitude towards sustainable consumption (as

defined by Reheul et al., 2001). These consumers claim to pay attention to

ecological packaging, the origin of the food products, or the absence of

genetically modified organisms, and regularly buy sustainable organic food

products. They perceive sustainable products to be better with respect to

taste, quality, safety, and freshness, and to be more beneficial with respect to

human health, the environment, and regional economies. A more negative

attitude is found for the attributes price, appearance, convenience, and

conservation. However, although people may have a positive attitude, they

are largely passive in their role as consumer when it comes to supporting

environmental or animal welfare improvements with their available budget

(e.g., Grunert and Juhl, 1995).

Different explanations can be suggested for the gap between the positive

attitude of consumers and their actual purchase behavior. For example,

behavior based on habit or situational factors like promotions can account

for the low market share of sustainable products (Minteer et al., 2004). Also,

several other individual or situational characteristics could be put forward

to explain this gap. Examples are values, knowledge, and perceived

behavioral control (Jager, 2000). Consumer purchasing decisions often

incorporate a complex variety of motivations that complicates an under-

standing of particular instances. Specific attitudes may suggest a specific

behavior when taken in isolation, but this may not be the case when con-

sidering the broader purchase decision. Additional attitudes come into play,

moderating behavior, diluting the impact of initial attitudes, and resulting in

an alternative outcome.

2.2. Personal Values, Needs, Motivations, and Involvement

Human values are referred to as relatively stable beliefs about the personal

or social desirability of certain behaviors and modes of existence. Values

express the goals/needs that motivate people and appropriate ways to attain

these goals/needs. Values can play an important role in the consumer

decision process, like product choice and brand choice (Burgess, 1992; Engel

et al., 1995). For example, people who adhere to the value ‘‘universalism’’

(see Appendix 1) may be motivated to protect the environment and there-

fore buy environmentally safe products. Values motivate action, giving it

direction and emotional intensity (Schwartz, 1994). For instance, Vitell et al.

(2001) found that consumers are more guided by principles or values

(deontology) than by consequences (teleology) when making ethical deci-

sions. Consumers rated unethical behavior as unethical regardless of whe-

ther this behavior had positive (e.g., using an expired coupon) or negative

(e.g., switching price tags) consequences for the consumer. In the same


manner, consequences of ethical behavior (either positive, e.g., cashier

mistake, or negative, e.g., copying software) were not considered in ethical

decisions, instead, consumers based their decision on the ethical value of the

behavior itself (either ethical or unethical).

Involvement or perceived personal importance is a specific kind of

motivation. Involvement is activated when a product, service, or promo-

tional message is perceived as instrumental in meeting important needs,

goals, and values. The object is important to the self because it addresses

important values and goals in people’s life. People are motivated to invest

cognitive effort in a decision-making process when they are highly involved,

for example, because an important personal need is not satisfied, while

habitual behavior occurs when consumers have low motivation (i.e., low

involvement) due to satisfied needs (Jager, 2000). Involvement influences the

extensiveness of information search, the length of the decision-making

process, formation of beliefs, attitudes and intentions, as well as behavioral

outcomes, such as variety seeking behavior, brand-switching behavior,

brand-commitment or loyalty, frequency of product usage, and shopping

enjoyment (Beharrel and Dennison, 1995; Verbeke and Vackier, 2004).

Numerous studies have linked ethical or sustainable behavior to personal

values (see Vermeir and Verbeke (2004) for an overview). In general, the

values universalism, benevolence, self-direction, honesty, idealism2, equality,

freedom, and responsibility have been linked to sustainable consumption,

whereas power, hedonism, tradition, security, conformity, and ambition

were associated with less ethical or less sustainable consumption patterns

(for an explanation of the values following Schwartz (1992), see Appendix

1). The confirmation of a causal relation between some values, like uni-

versalism, and a sustainable consumption pattern implies that promoting

the right values through socialization and national institutions can facili-

tate the achievement of the long-run goal of sustainable consumption

(Thogersen, 2001). However, Thogersen (2001) also argues that in the short

run, the extent of sustainable behavior depends much more on specific

factors, such as habits, specific attitudes, and preferences and on opportu-

nities to engage in sustainable consumption.

2.3. Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty

Access to clear and reliable information is an important factor in the pur-

chase decision process. Studies show that few consumers have a high

awareness or comprehension of the real sustainable characteristics of

products. The benefits of sustainable products are often poorly communi-

2 Idealism is the degree to which individuals assume that desirable consequences from specific

behaviors can, with the right actions, always be obtained (Forsyth, 1981).


cated to consumers, so that they are unable to make informed purchasing

decisions in accordance with their budget and/or conscience. Furthermore,

consumers often have limited knowledge of agriculture and its production

processes and a lack of insight into the implications of their food purchase

decisions on the food supply chain (Dickson, 2001; Verbeke, 2005). The less

information available and/or the more complex and contradictory this

information is, the more uncertain consumers may be regarding what

products to choose. A related issue is that sustainability is a credence

attribute, which means that consumers cannot evaluate it personally, though

have to put trust in the source that claims sustainability. Uncertainty can

lead to the use of social information, which means that consumers will look

at other people to get an indication of the best outcome. One way of pro-

viding information is through product labeling. However, Verbeke and

Viaene (1999) and Verbeke and Ward (2006) found a large contrast between

consumer’s subjective knowledge and perception of labels versus the exact

labeled beef features. In addition, research about the awareness of sus-

tainable labels in general and a specific fair-trade, organic label (Gordier,

2003) and sustainable fruit labels (Vannoppen et al., 2002) revealed that

both unaided and aided consumer awareness were very low.

2.4. Behavioral Control, Availability and Perceived Consumer Effectiveness

The third potential determinant of consumer decision-making pertains to

the availability of sustainable products, which is related to consumer’s

behavioral control. Behavioral control refers to the ease or difficulty of

obtaining or consuming a specific product. Although the motivation to

consume sustainable products is high, it may be impossible to do so because

of low availability. This problem is related to the scarcity of local food shops

or farmers’ markets, which often lack the regularity, and convenience de-

manded by consumers. In addition, ethical products often have limited

availability, and are not really visible in the shop, and/or are inadequately

promoted (De Pelsmacker et al., 2003). Recent research shows that 52% of

consumers were interested in purchasing ‘‘earth-sustainable’’ foods, but did

not purchase those foods owing to the perceived barriers of lack of avail-

ability, followed by inconvenience and price (Robinson and Smith, 2002).

Another aspect related to behavioral control is the perceived consumer

effectiveness (PCE), which is the extent to which the consumer believes that

his personal efforts can contribute to the solution of a problem. High PCE is

necessary to evoke consumers to translate their positive attitudes into actual

purchase (Ellen et al., 1991; Berger and Corbin, 1992; Roberts, 1996; Lee

and Holden, 1999). Roberts (1996) suggests that in order to motivate

behavioral changes, consumers must be convinced that their behavior has an


impact on, for example, the environment or will be effective in fighting

environmental degradation or social inequality.

3. RESEARCH METHOD

3.1. Study Objectives and Design

The objective of the study is, first, to gain a better insight into sustainable

consumption and the influence of several individual characteristics on the

attitude and behavioral intention towards purchasing sustainable products.

The aim is to assess whether consumers with a high (versus low) level of a

specific individual characteristic have a different attitude and behavioral

intention towards sustainable products. Second, we investigate whether

consumers’ level of four individual characteristics, namely involvement,

certainty, perceived availability, and PCE, can be influenced by information

provision or communication. Respondents were subjected to a specific

condition (see further) that resulted in either a low or a high level of the

particular individual characteristic.

Where possible, manipulations were used instead of measuring the

existing levels of the variables for several reasons. First, manipulations of

constructs provide a better way to derive consequences (Iacobucci, 2001).

Second, fairly equal groups were needed to ascertain the influence of the

constructs on attitudes and behavioral intention. If we measured existing

levels of involvement, for example, chances are that a considerable number

of the respondents would be rather less involved in regards to sustainable

consumption (cf. Dickson, 2001), while few respondents were highly in-

volved. Third, if these individual characteristics associate with sustainable

consumption, it is important to be able to manipulate them in order to

increase sustainable behavior, for instance through future communications.

Values and social norms were measured (not manipulated) because

values and social norms are inherent in each person and are almost

impossible to change or manipulate, especially in the short term. Values and

social norms are deep-seated ideas and motivations that are relatively stable

over a consumer’s life span. Social norms were specifically included because

of their function as a determinant of behavioral intentions in the theory of

reasoned action, and because previous research has shown that social norms

influence behavioral intention towards sustainable products (Robinson and

Smith, 2002). Identifying values or social norms that are associated with

high/low sustainable consumption could help us explain why some con-

sumers are (un)willing to invest in a sustainable future, hence providing

policy makers with the necessary information about which values/social

norms to express in their communications.


3.2. Materials

Previous research showed that consumers become more involved with a

product or service when the personal consequences are highlighted and the

importance of the product is emphasized (cf. Engel et al., 1995). Conse-

quently, we manipulated involvement by presenting half of the respondents

an article describing the potential benefits of sustainable products for the

consumer (e.g., safety, health, taste, and quality), the environment (e.g., less

pollution), and the society (e.g., lower unemployment, fair trade). The other

respondents received an article that was similar as far as length, writing

style, and difficulty but discussed a tourist national park. The aim was that

respondents who read the article about sustainability would become more

involved in regard to the subject, while the other respondents retain their

inherent (i.e., predominantly low, cf. Dickson, 2001) involvement level in

regards to sustainability.

To manipulate perceived availability, certainty, and PCE, three infor-

mational messages that respectively stress the availability, certainty, and

PCE of sustainable products were constructed. The case of organic dairy

products with the fictive brand name ‘‘Le Fermier’’ was used. Dairy prod-

ucts were chosen because they are one of the most frequently purchased

organic products (Cera-foundation, 2001). In the ‘‘high availability’’ mes-

sage, respondents were informed that Le Fermier products are widely

available, while websites and free phone numbers were provided to check for

the nearest-by selling point of Le Fermier products. In the ‘‘high certainty’’

message two existing, well known labels were shown – one organic and one

social label – that supposedly provide the consumer with certainty that

Le Fermier products are indeed ecologically and socially sound. The ‘‘high

PCE’’ message contained a short statement that informed the respondents

that they can contribute to a better world by reacting to unfair or unsus-

tainable actions. An example was given where pressure exerted by con-

sumers led to better prices and working conditions for Chiquita banana

growers in Latin America. Finally, a ‘‘control’’ message was created where

no information about availability, certainty, and PCE was provided.

Existing scales for measuring involvement and PCE (Roberts, 1996) were

used. A scale to test the perceived availability (three items) of Le Fermier

products was constructed. For example, respondents had to indicate on a 7-

point scale to what degree they thought that Le Fermier products are easy to

find in their neighborhood. In order to assess certainty, respondents were

asked to indicate how certain they were about 5 items on a 6-point scale

(e.g., ‘‘How certain are you that Le Fermier products are ecologically and

socially sound?’’). Social norms were measured with the scale previously


used by Verbeke and Vackier (2004)3 in the theory of planned behavior. The

Schwartz list of values (1992) was used to determine consumer values (See

appendix for scale items and definitions). Finally, attitudes toward (buying)

Le Fermier products and behavioral intentions were determined by using

existing classical scales.

3.3. Data Collection

The sample for this study consisted of 456 youngsters following higher

education in the age group 19–22 drawn from the population of Flanders,

Belgium. The rationale for focusing on this population is threefold. First, we

chose this uniform group because we wanted to rule out possible interfer-

ence from classical socio-demographic variables like age, income, or social

class. Previous research discovered that age, income, and social class influ-

ence attitude and behavioral intention in regards to sustainable consump-

tion (e.g., Roberts, 1996). Second, youngsters constitute the consumers of

the future, who should be capable of making a difference in the next half-

century.4 They are likely to take their habits into their older age and

therefore provide policy makers with ample possibilities to create sustain-

able food consumption habits within the population. Third, we deliberately

chose higher educated youngsters because they supposedly have some

awareness on the concept of sustainability. If respondents do not know the

concept of sustainability, attitudes (positive or negative) and behavioral

intentions (high or low) might be non-existing, making it impossible to

categorize respondents according to their attitude/behavioral intention.

Furthermore, it would be quite difficult for lay people to answer the ques-

tions about perceived availability, certainty, and PCE in the case of sus-

tainable products.

The questionnaire consisted of one text (increasing involvement or

neutral text), one informational message (control or one that either stimu-

lates perceived availability, certainty, or PCE), and numerous items to be

scored on interval scales. In addition, questions about gender, place of

residence, and awareness of sustainable aspects of food consumption were

included. Respondents first answered the demographic and awareness

3 This multi-item 7-point interval scale assesses respondent’s agreement on statements like

‘‘My family/friends/partner think(s) that I should eat/buy sustainable dairy products’’ and

‘‘Government/doctors and nutritionists/the food industry stimulate(s) me to eat/buy sustainable

dairy products.’’4 An anonymous referee remarked that there is potential bias because students may not buy

food for themselves, or may not see themselves efficaciously able to buy for themselves, and

hence rarely even think of sustainability issues except in the far-off abstract. This potential bias

was limited through focusing on attitude and behavioral intention, instead of on real market-

place behavior – which some students indeed may not have – and through including perceived

consumer effectiveness as a potential determinant of attitude and behavioral intention.


questions and completed the Schwartz value questionnaire. Next, respon-

dents were instructed to carefully read the magazine article about sustain-

able consumption or the text about a tourist national park, and to complete

the involvement questions. Finally, one of the four informational messages

for Le Fermier dairy products was shown and the respondents were in-

structed to complete the questions dealing with attitude, behavior, certainty,

availability, social norms, and PCE. The different versions of the informa-

tional message were randomly assigned to the respondents. Each message

was shown to an equal number of respondents.

4. EMPIRICAL FINDINGS

4.1. Construct Validity and Descriptive Statistics

Data analysis methods include ANOVA5 and correlation analyses. Pre-

liminary construct reliability checks showed that all constructs displayed

ample reliability with Cronbach’s alpha exceeding 0.60 for all scales

(Table 1). First, we tested whether our manipulations of involvement, per-

ceived availability, certainty, and PCE led to heightened levels of the indi-

vidual variables. Consumers who read the high involvement text about

sustainable consumption were afterwards effectively more involved with

sustainable consumption compared to consumers who read the text about

the tourist national park (p<0.05). Furthermore, consumers who received

the message that should enhance the perception of availability, reported a

higher level of perceived availability compared to consumers who received

other messages (p<0.001). Contrary to our expectations, consumers who

received the messages that should have stimulated PCE and certainty, did

not report a higher PCE and certainty compared to consumers who received

the other messages. This indicates that our manipulations of PCE and

certainty did not work as intended.

Next, consumers where classified as either high or low on a particular

individual characteristic. A similar procedure was applied to the Schwartz

value types. Note that we only describe those Schwartz values that triggered

significant results, more specifically, universalism and power. Mean atti-

tudes towards buying Le Fermier products were 5.09, while mean behavioral

intentions were 4.19, both on a 7-point scale. The correlation between

attitude towards sustainable consumption and behavioral intentions is

strongly positive (r=0.67, p<0.001). Mean levels for the individual

5 Analysis of Variance is a statistical technique for examining the differences among means

for two or more populations. A F statistic tests for the null hypothesis that the category means

are equal in the population. The p-value indicates the probability of rejecting a null hypothesis

that is in fact true, i.e., concluding that the means are different whereas they are in fact equal.


characteristics were the following: involvement (M=4.81), perceived avail-

ability (M=3.58), PCE (M=4.47), social norms (M=3.89), universalism

(M=3.93), power (M=3.46), all measured on a 7-point scale, and certainty

(M=3.49), measured on a 6-point scale.

4.2. Bivariate Analyses

First, we investigated differences in attitude and behavioral intentions

depending on consumer’s level of individual characteristics (Table 2).

Attitudes and behavioral intentions are stronger among highly involved

consumers, more certain consumers, consumers with higher PCE, with

higher perceived availability, and with stronger social norms. Attitudes to-

wards buying sustainable Le Fermier products are also higher among con-

sumers with higher universalism and lower power values. However,

behavioral intentions do not differ depending on consumer’s level of uni-

versalism and power.

Next, four groups of respondents were identified based on attitude to-

wards buying (low, high) and intention to buy sustainable Le Fermier

products (low, high) using median split.6 The amount of respondents and

Table 1. Construct reliability statistics (Cronbach alpha value).a

Construct Alpha values

Decision-making or individual/situational characteristics

Involvement towards sustainability 0.65

Attitude towards buying 0.80

Intentions to buy 0.92

Perceived Availability 0.80

Perceived Certainty 0.85

Perceived Consumer Effectiveness 0.72

Social norms 0.61

Universalism 0.86

Power 0.73

a Cronbach’s Alpha is a measure of internal consistency, which provides informationabout the reliability of a multi-item scale. Values exceeding 0.6 indicate internal

consistent scales, in other words, all items incorporated in the scale measure the sameunderlying construct.

6 Respondents are assigned to one of two possible groups based on the median, which is the

value above which half of the values fall and below which half of the values fall. Respondents

scoring below the median are assigned to the ‘‘low’’ group; respondents scoring above the

median are assigned to the ‘‘high’’ group.


relevant demographics per group are presented in Table 3. In general, wo-

men have significantly more positive attitudes towards buying Le Fermier

products (p<0.001) and higher intentions to buy (p<0.001) as compared to

men. No differences are found in attitudes and intentions for respondents

who live in the city versus the countryside or for respondents who differed in

claimed awareness of sustainability. We also asked our respondents to what

extent they had knowledge of sustainable consequences of food products (on

a 7-point scale). High knowledge of the sustainable character of food con-

sumption tended to be associated with a high behavioral intention (p=0.10).

Table 2. Mean attitude towards buying and mean behavioral intentions for lowversus high involvement, perceived availability, certainty, PCE, social norms and

values levels (n=456).

Attitude towards

buying Mean (S.D)aBehavioral intention

Mean (S.D)

Involvement Low 4.77 (1.15) 3.84 (1.42)

High 5.41 (1.05) 4.49 (1.43)

F-stat 39.06*** 23.65***

Certainty Low 4.67 (1.17) 3.55 (1.40)

High 5.40 (1.01) 4.65 (1.32)

F-stat 50.52*** 73.15***

Availability Low 4.95 (1.14) 3.84 (1.49)

High 5.22 (1.11) 4.49 (1.37)

F-stat 6.13** 22.89***

Perceived consumer

effectiveness

Low 4.81 (1.21) 3.79 (1.48)

High 5.39 (0.98) 4.50 (1.30)

F-stat 30.19*** 37.82***

Social norms Low 4.83 (1.25) 3.78 (1.47)

High 5.32 (0.99) 4.53 (1.37)

F-stat 20.93*** 30.65***

Universalism Low 4.99 (1.21) 4.10 (1.49)

High 5.19 (1.05) 4.24 (1.43)

F-stat 3.58* 1.02

Power Low 5.25 (1.06) 4.30 (1.43)

High 4.98 (1.13) 4.12 (1.45)

F-stat 6.11** 1.77

a Standard deviation or a measure of dispersion around the mean, expressed in thesame unit of measurement as the observations. In a normal distribution, 68% of the

cases fall within one standard deviation of the mean and 95% of the cases fall withintwo standard deviations.


No differences were found for consumers who had either high or low atti-

tudes.

As shown in Table 3, majorities of consumers have either a low attitude

and low behavioral intention or a high attitude and high behavioral inten-

tion, in line with consumer behavior theory. However, also a considerable

amount of our respondents have opposing attitudes and intentions. Some

consumers (n=43, 9.4%) feel strongly positive towards buying sustainable

Le Fermier products, while they are not planning to engage in this purchase.

On the other hand, some consumers (n=80, 17.5%) are planning to buy

these sustainable dairy products, even though they do not feel very positive.

To explain these inconsistencies, differences in terms of involvement, per-

ceived availability, certainty, PCE, social values, and values between the

four different groups are scrutinized.

Table 4 displays the mean scores and associated statistics on the indi-

vidual characteristics for the respondents belonging to the four attitudes –

behavioral intention segments as introduced in Table 3. Consumers who

have positive attitudes towards buying sustainable products and who

display high behavioral intentions have the highest involvement level.

These consumers apparently value sustainable consumption most strongly.

Those with low attitudes and low behavioral intentions are least involved

with sustainable products, although their score of 4.64 still denotes belief

that sustainable consumption can have substantial personal health, envi-

ronmental, or social benefits. Consumers who intend to buy Le Fermier

(irrespective of their attitude) are not strongly convinced that these

products are easily available7 but they do rate the availability higher as

compared to the consumers with a low level of intention. Also, consumers

Table 3. Size and demographic characteristics of consumer segments (n=456).

Attitude towards buying

Low High

Intention to buy

Low n = 169 n = 43

49.7% women 58.1% women

33.9% urban 34.9% urban

High n = 80 n = 164

67.5% women 71.8% women

36.3% urban 38.3% urban

7 The fact that perceived availability is evaluated rather low is logical since subjects were

presented a fictive or non-existing brand of sustainable dairy products.


who do not intend to buy Le Fermier believe that the product is not easily

available even if they have a positive attitude towards buying the product.

In other words, consumers can have a positive attitude towards buying

sustainable products but not intend to do so because they think the

product is not easily available. Note that it was previously indicated

that perceived availability can easily be influenced through information

provision.

Certainty levels differ between all segments. Consumers who have high

positive attitudes and behavioral intentions display the highest certainty

level that Le Fermier is indeed sustainable, while consumers with lower

attitudes and intentions display significantly lower certainty levels. Con-

sumers with high intentions to buy Le Fermier have the highest PCE scores

irrespective of their attitude level. Within the group of consumers with low

Table 4. Mean scores for individual characteristics of consumer segments; meanswith different subscripts (a, b, c, d) in one row or in one column are significantly

different using F-test statistics.a

Low attitude

towards buying

High attitude

towards buying

Involvement

Low intention to buy 4.64 a 4.88 b

High intention to buy 4.72 a 5.04 b

Perceived availability

Low intention to buy 3.24 a 3.31 a

High intention to buy 3.83 b 3.88 b

Certainty


High intention to buy 3.64 c 4.04 d

Perceived consumer effectiveness


High intention to buy 4.51 c 4.74 c

Social norms


High intention to buy 4.13 c 4.07 b,c

Universalism


High intention to buy 3.95 a 4.01 a,b

Power

Low intention to buy 3.59 a 3.31 a

High intention to buy 3.59 a 3.33 a,b

a F-statistics result from Analysis of Variance (see also footnote 5).


intentions to buy, PCE differs between those consumers with low versus

high attitudes towards buying. The highest score for social norms is ob-

served for consumers with low attitude and high intentions. This indicates

that social norms, or willingness to comply with the opinions of others,

explain why some consumers intend to buy sustainable products despite

having rather low personal attitudes towards buying sustainable products.

Finally, universalism differs depending on attitude within the low intention

segments, whereas power differs depending on attitude within the high

intention segments.

5. DISCUSSION

This empirical study indicates that young consumers in Belgium are rather

highly involved with sustainable food consumption (hence, contradicting

Dickson, 2001). Our finding confirms previous research on adolescent’s

perspectives of environmental impacts on food by Bisonette and Contento

(2001). Furthermore, consumers with high involvement have more positive

attitudes and are more willing to purchase sustainable products. In addition,

the manipulation of involvement contributed to increased involvement

levels of consumers. Hence, confronting consumers with the benefits of

sustainable consumption yields higher personal importance attached to

sustainability.

Respondents in general believe that an individual consumer can con-

tribute to protecting the environment and improving producer’s welfare

(contrary to Roberts, 1996). Furthermore, consumers who believe in their

personal consumer effectiveness are more positive towards sustainable

products and have more intentions of purchasing them. Our manipulation

of PCE did not make consumers believe stronger in their personal ability to

make a difference. Possibly the example provided (Chiquita banana) was too

distant to really be of concern for Flemish consumers. An example of local

farmers who ultimately benefit from sustainable product sales or local

nature reserves that are saved or recovered thanks to local consumption

patterns might have worked better. Another potential explanation is that

PCE may be strongly inherent to a person (like values and social norms) and

hard to change in the short term.

Consumers do not really believe that Le Fermier sustainable dairy

products are easily available. One possible explanation for the low perception

of availability could be the overall picture that is associated with sustainable

products. The general public believes that sustainable products are difficult

to obtain and this image will not easily be shattered. Consumers probably

expect that they will have to drive to a farm on the countryside or to a


specialized shop to find sustainable products. Our results confirmed that

higher perceived availability associates with more positive attitudes and

intentions towards buying sustainable products. In addition, we found that

perceived availability could indeed act as a barrier for sustainable con-

sumption intention. Consumers who believe that sustainable products are

less available intend less to purchase these products, even though they have

positive attitudes. However, we were able to increase the perceived avail-

ability of consumers by simply providing them with an Internet address and

telephone number. Even though consumers have to make some effort to find

out where to purchase Le Fermier products, consumers did rate Le Fermier

products asmore highly available after being confrontedwith this information.

Consumers somewhat believe that Le Fermier products promote sus-

tainability regardless of our manipulation of certainty. Certainty about

sustainability claims associates with more positive attitudes and stronger

intentions to buy these products. However, the labels included in our mes-

sages did not increase perceptions of certainty. This is unexpected since the

sustainable organic label used is well known. Maybe this label is mainly

associated with healthier food rather than with a more sustainable pro-

duction method. The other label – focusing on social aspects of sustain-

ability – is less present in daily purchase situations, which might have

hindered the confidence attached to the label. Another potential explanation

is that our results confirm previous studies that indicate the relative impo-

tence of food labels with respect to improving consumer’s perception on

credence attributes.

Furthermore, consumers in general are not really strongly convinced that

friends or family want them to buy sustainable products. This implies again

that sustainable consumption in Flanders is not a general goal or ideal. We

found that consumers, who adhere to higher social norms concerning sus-

tainable products, have more positive attitudes and intentions towards

sustainable products. Our results also confirm that consumers who score

high on universalism and low on power have more positive attitudes to-

wards sustainable products.

The empirical findings indicate that sustainable products can be pro-

moted to the broader public through specific communication efforts that

lower perceived barriers to consumption. Previous research suggests that

sustainable consumption should not be promoted on the basis of the

goodness of being an ethical consumer, norms, collective rationality, or

environmental ethics, since the ethos of environmentalism or sustainable

consumption cannot compete with the consumption ethos (Ger, 1999). Our

results show that the value of sustainable products could be directly pro-

moted by emphasizing personal relevance and importance to the individual

(i.e., increasing consumer involvement), informing consumers about


product availability, informing consumers about their possible effectiveness,

or increasing the social norms associated with sustainable consumption.

In order to promote sustainable consumption, people could also opt to

influence consumer values. However, value-based policy proposals that re-

spond to an alleged need to change basic ‘‘consumerist’’ values are hard to

realize and call for a long-term approach. Consumers do not change their

values on a day to day basis. Behavior-based solutions that emphasize the

need for social and institutional changes that facilitate environmentally

sounder consumer behaviors on a case-by-case basis are much more feasible

(Goodwin et al., 1997).

Consumers are clearly not a homogenous group, and raising their

awareness of the issues involved within food production needs to be targeted

accordingly. In our research, we identified four different consumer segments

based on attitude and behavioral intentions. The segments differ with re-

spect to many individual characteristics. Following these characteristics, we

can recommend different strategies to more effectively reach the different

consumer segments. Consumers who think it is very positive and meaningful

to buy Le Fermier products and indicate that there is a good chance that

they will buy Le Fermier products are generally more involved with sus-

tainable consumption. Based on this consumer profile, we argue that com-

munication towards them should focus on the rightness of their behavior.

Marketers or policy makers could cheer their efforts and emphasize all the

benefits that are associated with sustainable consumption, both for them-

selves as individual consumers and for the broader environment and society.

Consumers who do not feel positive or sensible about buying Le Fermier

products and who do not intend to buy these products are less involved with

sustainable consumption. They have a neutral position on the perception of

consumer effectiveness and are uncertain that Le Fermier products are really

sustainable. They also believe that Le Fermier products are not easily

available in their neighborhood. Probably the most effective strategy would

be to envisage a change of these consumers’ values from an emphasis on

power and authority to striving for a better world, but this long-term goal

would be hard to realize (cf. Goodwin et al., 1997; Thogersen, 2001). A

more feasible short-term strategy could be to enhance involvement of these

consumers by stressing the personal benefits of sustainable products, with a

focus on ‘‘selfish’’ needs. Individualistic needs, such as security about health

consequences, hedonistic needs, and the need for economic reasoning could

be used to stimulate sustainable consumption among this consumer seg-

ment. In addition, availability, PCE, and certainty should be underlined,

since these consumers poorly rate these constructs.

The two remaining segments (together accounting for more than one

quarter of the sample) display conflicting attitudes and behavioral intention,


hence illustrating the existing attitude – behavioral intention gap. Some

consumers have a very positive attitude towards buying Le Fermier prod-

ucts, but are not intending to buy these products. The most plausible

explanation for this inconsistency is their idea that Le Fermier products are

not easily available in their neighborhood. The most straightforward

strategy to stimulate these consumers to buy sustainable food is by stressing

and demonstrating the availability of sustainable products. As mentioned

before, providing a telephone number or Internet address could yet be

sufficient to win them over. Even more effective would be to organize a

better supply of sustainable products in supermarkets. Furthermore, com-

munication could stress the reliability of labels, as these features are not

strongly believed in. In addition, communication can try to increase con-

sumers’ PCE, as these consumers only moderately believe that one person

can make a difference. Finally, increasing their involvement could lead them

to display more effort to search for the availability of sustainable products.

Finally, some consumers do not feel positive about buying Le Fermier

products, but nevertheless claim it is very probable that they will buy these

products. Data show that this inconsistency is to be understood in terms of

their belief about social norms. These consumers believe that their friends

and family find it fairly important that they buy sustainable products. Most

likely, they intend to buy Le Fermier products for social desirability reasons.

A potentially successful strategy is to underline and confirm the social

norms and pressure from peers that these consumers are subject to. A

perhaps more controllable strategy would be to also increase these con-

sumers’ personal involvement level.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial number of studies show that consumers value the ethical as-

pects in a product, that attitudes are quite favorable, but also that behav-

ioral patterns are not fully consistent with attitudes. In this study, we

explored the attitude – behavioral intention gap by analyzing consumer

attitudes and purchase intention for sustainable dairy products, which have

several attributes to which a consumer pays attention: price, brand, con-

venience, package, ingredients, taste, and, maybe, also the presence of a

credence attribute like sustainability. We investigated the impact of indi-

vidual and situational characteristics, more specifically involvement, per-

ceived availability, perceived certainty, PCE, values, and social norms, on

consumers’ attitudes, and intentions towards sustainable products.

The absence of a measure of actual behavior and the limited and specific

sample are obvious limitations of our study. Actually, the utilization of a


fictive brand/product and the experimental study design prohibited us from

measuring real behavior. However, we argue that behavioral intention and

behavior are strongly, though never perfectly, correlated. Our specific

interest was devoted to the previous link in the decision-making process,

namely the link between attitudes and behavioral intention. We also

acknowledge that in real life purchase situations, a lot of other factors can

influence the decision-making process of sustainable products. In addition to

other individual characteristics, situational and product-related factors will

obviously play an important role and require attention in future research.

The findings of this study yield public policy and marketing recom-

mendations for stimulating sustainable food consumption among the

young, who can reasonably be assumed to constitute the main market of

sustainable food products in the future. This study provides a first glance

at the complex decision-making process towards sustainable products by

investigating some of its important influencing factors. Individual charac-

teristics like involvement with sustainability, certainty with respect to

sustainability claims, and perceived consumer effectiveness have a signifi-

cant positive impact on attitude towards buying the products, which also

correlates strongly with intention to buy. Low perceived availability of

sustainable products explains why for some consumers intentions to buy

remain low, although their attitudes might be positive. For other con-

sumers, experiencing social pressure from peers (social norm) explains

intentions to buy, despite rather negative attitudes. Linking values as

specified in the value theory of Schwartz (1992) with intention to buy

sustainable products shows that universalism and power significantly dif-

fered between respondents with low and high attitudes. Furthermore, this

study shows that more sustainable and ethical food consumption can be

stimulated through raising involvement, PCE, certainty, social norms, and

perceived availability. Most importantly, this study demonstrated that

some of these key determinants, namely involvement, perceived availabil-

ity, and perceived consumer effectiveness, can be successfully influenced

through communication efforts and the provision of information, which is

an effort that can be taken up by any stakeholder involved with sustainable

food chains.

APPENDIX

Schwartz List of Values (1992)

Power: social status and prestige, control or dominance over people and

resources


s Social power (control over others, dominance)

s Wealth (material possessions, money)

s Social recognition (respect, approval by others)

s Authority (the right to lead or command)

s Preserving my public image (protecting my ‘‘face’’)

Achievement: personal success through demonstrating competence according

to social standards

s Ambitious (hardworking, aspiring)

s Influential (having an impact on people and events)

s Capable (competent, effective, efficient)

s Intelligent (logical, thinking)

s Successful (achieving goals)

Hedonism: pleasure and sensuous gratification for oneself

s Pleasure (gratification of desires)

s Sexuality (a satisfying sex life)

s Enjoying life (enjoying food, sex, leisure, etc.)

s Spoil oneself (doing pleasant things)

Stimulation: excitement, novelty and challenge in life

s An exciting life (stimulating experiences)

s A varied life (filled with challenge, novelty, and change)

s Daring (seeking adventure, risk)

Self-direction: independent thought and action- choosing, creating, exploring

s Freedom (freedom of action and thought)

s Self-respect (belief in one’s own worth)

s Creativity (uniqueness, imagination)

s Independent (self-reliant, self-sufficient)

s Choosing own goals (selecting own purposes)

s Curious (interested in everything, exploring)

Universalism: understanding, appreciation, tolerance, protection for the wel-

fare of all people and for nature

s Equality (equal opportunity for all)

s A world at peace (free of war and conflict)

s Unity with nature (fitting into nature)

s Wisdom (a mature understanding of life)

s A world of beauty (beauty of nature and the arts)

s Social justice (correcting injustice, care for the weak)


s Broad-minded (tolerant of different ideas and beliefs)

s Protecting the environment (preserving nature)

Benevolence: preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people with

whom one is in frequent personal contact

s Mature love (deep emotional and spiritual intimacy)

s True friendship (close, supportive friends)

s Loyal (faithful to my friends, group)

s Honest (genuine, sincere)

s Helpful (working for the welfare of others)

s Responsible (dependable, reliable)

s Forgiving (willing to pardon others)

Tradition: respect, commitment and acceptance of the custom and ideas that

traditional culture or religion provide the self

s Respect for tradition (preservation of time-honored customs)

s Moderate (avoiding extremes of feeling and action)

s Humble (modest, self-effacing)

s Accepting my portion in life (submitting to life’s circumstances)

s Devout (holding to religious faith and belief)

Conformity: restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or

harm others and violate social expectations or norms

s Politeness (courtesy, good manners)

s Self-discipline (self-restraint, resistance to temptation)

s Honoring of parents and elders (showing respect)

s Obedient (dutiful, meeting obligations)

Security: safety, harmony, and stability of society, of relationships, and of

the self

s Sense of belonging (feeling that others care about me)

s Social order (stability of society)

s National security (protection of my nation from enemies)

s Reciprocation of favors (avoidance of indebtedness)

s Family security (safety for loved ones)

s Healthy (not being sick physically or mentally)

s Clean (neat, tidy)


REFERENCES

Ajzen, I. (2001), ‘‘Nature and Operation of Attitudes,’’ Annual Review of Psychology52, pp. 27–58.

Ajzen, I. and M. Fishbein (1974), ‘‘Factors Influencing Intentions and Intention-Behavior Relation,’’ Human Relations 27(1), pp. 1–15.

Beharrel, B. and T. J. Denisson (1995), ‘‘Involvement in a Routine Food Shopping

Context,’’ British Food Journal 107(7), pp. 24–29.Berger, I. E. and R. M. Corbin (1992), ‘‘Perceived Consumer Effectiveness and Faithin Others as Moderators of Environmentally Responsible Behaviors,’’ Journal of

Public Policy and Marketing 11(2), pp. 79–88.Bisonette, M. M. and I. R. Contento (2001), ‘‘Adolescents’ Perspectives and FoodChoice Behaviors in Terms of the Environmental Impacts of Food ProductionPractices: Application of a Psychosocial Model,’’ Journal of Nutrition Education

33(2), pp. 72–82.Burgess, S. M. (1992), ‘‘Personal Values and Consumer Research: A HistoricalPerspective,’’ Research in Marketing 11, pp. 35–79.

Carrigan, M. and A. Attalla (2001), ‘‘The Myth of the Ethical Consumer- Do EthicsMatter in Purchase Behavior,’’ Journal of Consumer Marketing 18(7), pp. 560–577.

Cera-Foundation (2001), Biologische land- en tuinbouw: de Stille doorbraak Voorbij!?

Leuven: Horizon.Chan, R. Y. K. (2001), ‘‘Determinants of Chinese Consumers’ Green PurchaseBehavior,’’ Psychology and Marketing 18(4), pp. 389–413.

De Pelsmacker, P., L. Driesen, and G. Rayp (2003), Are fair trade labels goodbusiness? Ethics and coffee buying intentions, Working Paper Ghent University,Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent.

Diamantapoulos, A., B. B. Schlegelmilch, R. R. Sinkovics, and G. M. Bohlen (2003),

‘‘Can Socio-Demographics Still Play a Role in Profiling Green Consumers? AReview of the Evidence and an Empirical Investigation,’’ Journal of BusinessResearch 56(4), pp. 465–480.

Dickson, M. A. (2001), ‘‘Utility of No Sweat Labels for Apparel Consumers:Profiling Label Users and Predicting their Purchases,’’ The Journal of ConsumerAffairs 35(1), pp. 96–119.

Dupuis, E. (2000), ‘‘Not In My Body: rBGH and the Rise of Organic Milk,’’Agriculture and Human Values 17(3), pp. 285–295.

Ellen, P. S., J. L. Weiner, and C. Cobb-Walgreen (1991), ‘‘The Role of PerceivedConsumer Effectiveness in Motivating Environmentally Conscious Behaviors,’’

Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 10(2), pp. 102–117.Engel, J. F., R. D. Blackwell, and P. W. Miniard (1995), Consumer behavior, NewYork: The Dryden Press.

Forsyth, D. R. (1981), ‘‘Moral Judgment: The Influence of Ethical Ideology,’’ Per-sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin 7, pp. 218–223.

FSA (Food Standards Agency), Qualitative research to explore public attitudes to

food safety, Report prepared for the FSA by Cragg Ross Dawson Ltd. [online][cited 13.06.2003] URL: http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/qualitativerep.pdf, 2000.

Ger, G. (1999), ‘‘Experiental Meanings of Consumption and Sustainability in Tur-key,’’ Advances in Consumer Research 26, pp. 276–280.


Giddens, A. (1991), Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Society in the Late ModernAge, Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.

Goodwin, N. R., F. Ackerman, and D. Kiron (1997), The Consumer Society,Washington, DC: Island Press.

Gordier, A. (2003). Het effect van ethische communicatie, M. Sc. Thesis, Faculty of

Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Ghent.Grunert, K. G. (2005), ‘‘Food Quality and Safety: Consumer Perception and De-mand,’’ European Review of Agricultural Economics 32, pp. 369–391.

Grunert, S. C. and H. J. Juhl (1995), ‘‘Values, Environmental Attitudes, and Buyingof Organic Foods,’’ Journal of Economic Psychology 16(1), pp. 39–62.

Iacobucci, D. (2001), ‘‘Methodological and Statistical Concerns of the ExperimentalBehavioral Researcher: Introduction,’’ Journal of Consumer Psychology 10(1–2),

pp. 1–2.IGD (Institute of Grocery Distribution), Consumer attitudes to ‘‘Eat the View’’: parttwo – store exit interviews, Report prepared for the Countryside Agency by the

IGD, Letchmore Heath, Watford, Herts. [online] [cited 14.07.2003] URL: http://www.eat-the-view.org.uk/research/pdf/Consumer%20Attitudes%20%20Part%202.pdf, 2002a.

IGD (Institute of Grocery Distribution), UK consumers put price before the envi-ronment, animal welfare and fair trade, Press release – 21.11.2002. [online] [cited07.05.2003] URL: http://www.igd.com, 2002b.

Jager, W. (2000),Modelling consumer behavior, PhD thesis, University of Groningen,

Groningen.Jensen, K. K. and P. Sandoe (2002), ‘‘Food Safety and Ethics: The Interplay betweenScience and Values,’’ Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15(3), pp.

245–253.Kokkinaki, F. and P. Lunt (1997), ‘‘The Relationship between Involvement, AttitudeAccessibility and Attitude-Behavior Consistency,’’ British Journal of Social Psy-

chology 36(3), pp. 497–509.Kraus, S. J. (1995), ‘‘Attitudes and the Prediction of Behavior – a Meta-Analysis ofthe Empirical Literature,’’ Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21(1), pp.

58–75.Lee, J. A. and S. J. S. Holden (1999), ‘‘Understanding the Determinants of Envi-ronmentally Conscious Behavior,’’ Psychology and Marketing 16(5), pp. 373–392.

MacGillivray, A. (2000), The Fair Share, The growing market share of green and

ethical products, London: New Economics Foundation.Maignan, I. and O. C. Ferrel (2001), ‘‘Antecedents and Benefits of Corporate Citi-zenship: An Investigation of French Businesses,’’ Journal of Business Research

51(1), pp. 37–51.Meulenberg, M. (2003), ‘‘Consument en burger, betekenis voor de markt vanlandbouwproducten en voedingsmiddelen [Consumer and citizen, meaning for the

market of agricultural products and food products],’’ Tijdschrift voor SociaalWetenschappelijk onderzoek van de Landbouw 18(1), pp. 43–56.

Minteer, B. A., E. A. Corley, and R. E. Manning (2004), ‘‘Environmental EthicsBeyond Principle? The Case for a Pragmatic Contextualism,’’ Journal of Agri-

cultural and Environmental Ethics 17(2), pp. 131–156.MORI (2000), European attitudes towards corporate social responsibility, London:MORO.


Reheul, D., E. Mathijs, and J. Relaes (2001), Elements for a future view with respectto sustainable agri- and horticulture in Flanders, Report from the project ‘‘Sus-

tainable Agriculture’’, Stedula, Ghent.Roberts, J. A. (1995), ‘‘Profiling Levels of Socially Responsible Consumer Behavior:A cluster Analytic Approach and its Implications for Marketing,’’ Journal of

Marketing Theory and Practice 3(4), pp. 97–118.Roberts, J. A. (1996), ‘‘Green consumers in the 1990s: Profile and Implications forAdvertising,’’ Journal of Business Research 36(3), pp. 217–231.

Robinson, R. and C. Smith (2002), ‘‘Psychosocial and Demographic VariablesAssociated with Consumer Intention to Purchase Sustainable Produced Foods asDefined by the Midwest Food Alliance,’’ Journal of Nutrition Education andBehavior 34(6), pp. 316–325.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992), ‘‘Universals in the Content and Structure of Values – The-oretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries,’’ Advances in ExperimentalSocial Psychology 25, pp. 1–65.

Schwartz, S. H. (1994), ‘‘Are there Universal Aspects in the Structure and Content ofHuman Values?,’’ Journal of Social Issues 50(4), pp. 19–45.

SDC (Sustainable Development Commission), A vision for sustainable agriculture,

URL: http://www.sd-commission.gov.uk/pubs/food2001/index.htm, 2003.Shamdasani, P., C. O. Chon-Lin, and D. Richmond (1993), ‘‘Exploring GreenConsumers in an Orientic Culture: Role of Personal and Marketing Mix Factors,’’Advances in Consumer Research 20, pp. 488–493.

Shrum, L. J., J. A. McCarty, and T. M. Lowrey (1995), ‘‘Buyer Characteristics of theGreen Consumer and their Implications for Advertising Strategy,’’ Journal ofAdvertising 24(2), pp. 71–82.

Sikula, A. and A. D. Costa (1994), ‘‘Are Women More Ethical Then Men,’’ Journalof Business Ethics 13(11), pp. 859–871.

Tallontire, A., E. Rentsendorj, and M. Blowfield (2001), Ethical Consumers and

Ethical Trade: A Review of Current Literature, Policy Series 12, Natural ResourcesInstitute, Kent.

Tanner, C. and S. W. Kast (2003), ‘‘Promoting Sustainable Consumption: Deter-

minants of Green Purchases by Swiss Consumers,’’ Psychology and Marketing20(10), pp. 883–902.

Thogersen, J. (2001), ‘‘Consumer Values, Behavior and Sustainable Development,’’Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research 4, pp. 207–209.

Tsalikis, J. and M. Ortiz-Buonafina (1990), ‘‘Ethical Beliefs’’ Differences of Malesand Females,’’ Journal of Business Ethics 9(6), pp. 509–517.

Vannoppen, J.W., Verbeke, and G. Van Huylenbroeck (2002), ‘‘Consumer Value

Structures Towards Supermarket Versus Farm Shop Purchase of Apples fromIntegrated Production in Belgium,’’ British Food Journal 104(10–11), pp. 828–844.

Verbeke, W. (2005), ‘‘Agriculture and the Food Industry in the Information Age,’’

European Review of Agricultural Economics 32, pp. 347–368.Verbeke, W. and I. Vackier (2004), ‘‘Profile and Effects of Consumer Involvement inFresh Meat,’’ Meat Science 67, pp. 159–168.

Verbeke, W. and J. Viaene (1999), ‘‘Consumer Attitude to Beef Quality Labels and

Associations with Beef Quality Labels,’’ Journal of International Food and Agri-business 10(3), pp. 45–65.


Verbeke, W. and R. W. Ward (2006), ‘‘Consumer Interest in Beef Quality andCountry-of- Origin: An Application of Ordered Probit Models to Belgium Beef

Labels,’’ Food Quality and Preference 17, in press.Vermeir, I. and W. Verbeke (2004), Sustainable food consumption, involvement,certainly and values: an application of the theory of Planned Behavior, Working

Paper, Department of Agricultural Economics, Ghent University, Ghent.Vitell, S. J., A. Singhapakdi, and J. Thomas (2001), ‘‘Consumer Ethics: An Appli-cation and Empirical testing of the Hunt-Vitell Theory of Ethics,’’ Journal of

Consumer Marketing 18(2), pp. 153–179.Weatherell, C., A. Tregear, and J. Allinson (2003), ‘‘In Search of the ConcernedConsumer: UK Public Perceptions of Food, Farming and Buying Local,’’ Journalof Rural Studies 19(2), pp. 233–244.

World Bank (2003), ‘‘World Development Report 2003’’, in, Sustainable Develop-ment in a Dynamic World, Transforming Institutions, Growth and Quality ofLife, New York: Oxford University Press for World Bank.

Iris Vermeir

Department of Business AdministrationHogeschool GentVoskenslaan 270B-9000 GentBelgium

E-mail: [email protected]

Wim Verbeke

Department of Agricultural EconomicsGhent UniversityCoupure links 653B-9000 GentBelgiumE-mail: [email protected]


Documents

Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics …...Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics (2006) 19:169–194 DOI 10.1007/s10806-005-5485-3 Springer 2006 aspect has ﬁrst